Thread: Does Communism still have a role to play, or is it dead?

Besides, in case of a global nuclear exchange only about one fourth to one third of the world's population will die (including all factors according to the most pessimistic scenarios). Some more will die out of hunger later, but generally - it wouldn't be all that disasterous as many people think. The humanity will live on. In fact, in the world of global superpowers there is no place for other players so many nations will get a second chance once the main players will be out of the game.

P.S. What I mean is that some ideas start to pop in the minds of high-ranked generals around the world. By 2020 US might be able to neutralize all Russian nuclear forces and I doubt there will be anything that would stop them from using nukes again.

Originally Posted by Ramil

P.S. What I mean is that some ideas start to pop in the minds of high-ranked generals around the world. By 2020 US might be able to neutralize all Russian nuclear forces and I doubt there will be anything that would stop them from using nukes again.

I agree, that threat is real. Nobody had cancelled the tactic nuclear weapons yet and in some cases (e.g. to destroy an aircraft carrier) that is one of the valid options. And it's obvious that some of the Russian strategic missiles would slip through causing that very global destruction you mentioned. I'm not sure how that scenario could be reliably prevented.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I'm not sure how that scenario could be reliably prevented.

ABM and high precision weapons. Even if some lucky missile slips through the grid, 10-15 million of civilian losses might be considered 'acceptable collateral damage'.

Originally Posted by Ramil

ABM and high precision weapons. Even if some lucky missile slips through the grid, 10-15 million of civilian losses might be considered 'acceptable collateral damage'.

You see, the USSR at Andropov's time had much better strategy without the high precision stuff. Conquer the continent and don't let the US to help it. Then, eventually the US would not be able to sustain NATO alone when the world market will shrink. So, the communists in the US would eventually win. Problem solved. (Of course, relatively young Andropov did not live long.) It won't be clean like that in case the NATO would assault Russia. Not sure if the 10-15 million is a price the US politicians would be willing to pay.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Not sure if the 10-15 million is a price the US politicians would be willing to pay.

Not now, perhaps, not yet. But what can we say about the next decade with a relative certainity? I doubt the world's economy will be able to live through the current crisis without losses. What else? Everything will become more expensive, food included. The problems with migrants will become more and more serious, etc, etc, etc.
The Middle East has a very high chances to explode which will cause oil prices skyrocket. I'm not saying that this will surely happen, but the probabilities are rather high. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. A global war will be a logical move at that point. It may sound strange, but a war can in fact provide a way out of the current stalemate, not the best way, but stupidity rules...

Originally Posted by Ramil

The Middle East has a very high chances to explode which will cause oil prices skyrocket. I'm not saying that this will surely happen, but the probabilities are rather high. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. A global war will be a logical move at that point. It may sound strange, but a war can in fact provide a way out of the current stalemate, not the best way, but stupidity rules...

Some time back, one smart person mentioned to me that the oil crisis in the Middle East might benefit the US oil producers since the government would authorize full scale excavation of the oil reserves. Also, when the oil prices start growing uncontrollably, other fuel options become economically viable. For example:

"The global oil-shale industry began to revive at the beginning of the 21st century. In 2003, an oil-shale development program restarted in the United States. Authorities introduced a commercial leasing program permitting the extraction of oil shale and oil sands on federal lands in 2005, in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005." Oil shale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And since the production of goods had mainly shifted to the Asian countries, the export of oil might offset the import costs of goods from Asia... Anyways, not sure this is a right place and time to bring up that discussion. Probably, when the immature slogans like "The US simply wants to control the entire world and the only obstacle to that is Russia" will cease to be used irresponsibly... Anyways, you got the picture.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Some time back, one smart person mentioned to me that the oil crisis in the Middle East might benefit the US oil producers since the government would authorize full scale excavation of the oil reserves. Also, when the oil prices start growing uncontrollably, other fuel options become economically viable. For example:

"The global oil-shale industry began to revive at the beginning of the 21st century. In 2003, an oil-shale development program restarted in the United States. Authorities introduced a commercial leasing program permitting the extraction of oil shale and oil sands on federal lands in 2005, in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005." Oil shale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... or US can be quietly preparing for a global war

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Probably, when the immature slogans like "The US simply wants to control the entire world and the only obstacle to that is Russia" will cease to be used irresponsibly... Anyways, you got the picture.

But Crodocile, dear, US really wants to control the entine world , and unfortunately Russia is not an obstacle any more.